Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Kevin O'Malley]

So it's all just another dud.  MFMP is working up quite a record of finding
duds.

On Monday, May 29, 2017, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:

> Has the testing concluded? It is now 3 PM in  Czech.
>
>
> --
> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jedrothw...@gmail.com');>>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 27, 2017 4:37 PM
> *To:* Vortex
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
>
> I do not know whether me356 claimed it takes time to crank up his machine.
> I have not been following the discussion. However, if it *does* take
> time, he should have told that to the people from MFMP. Or, if the machine
> is unreliable and does not work some days, he should have said so. He
> should have said, "be prepared to stay for a week."
>
> For their part, the MFMP people should have figured 4 days might not be
> long enough. Frankly, I could have told them that. There are always missing
> cables and last minute glitches.
>
> I hope they can arrange to have one or two of team stay longer. I hope
> me346 will allow that.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jones Beene]

Looks like a major problem has been spotted, suggesting why me356 
honestly thought he was getting excess heat:


His power meter was reading 0.452 KW

vs

1.112 KW from MFMP meter

Yikes... such a significant deficit error in measuring input power will 
certainly give the appearance of OU. The inventor most likely believed 
he was getting gain - or he would never have scheduled the testing.


This conclusion assumes the MFMP meter is accurate. The error does not 
explain COP=6 and there is still the chance of seeing lesser gain.

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Brian Ahern]

Has the testing concluded? It is now 3 PM in  Czech.



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 4:37 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

I do not know whether me356 claimed it takes time to crank up his machine. I 
have not been following the discussion. However, if it does take time, he 
should have told that to the people from MFMP. Or, if the machine is unreliable 
and does not work some days, he should have said so. He should have said, "be 
prepared to stay for a week."

For their part, the MFMP people should have figured 4 days might not be long 
enough. Frankly, I could have told them that. There are always missing cables 
and last minute glitches.

I hope they can arrange to have one or two of team stay longer. I hope me346 
will allow that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jed Rothwell]

I do not know whether me356 claimed it takes time to crank up his machine.
I have not been following the discussion. However, if it *does* take time,
he should have told that to the people from MFMP. Or, if the machine is
unreliable and does not work some days, he should have said so. He should
have said, "be prepared to stay for a week."

For their part, the MFMP people should have figured 4 days might not be
long enough. Frankly, I could have told them that. There are always missing
cables and last minute glitches.

I hope they can arrange to have one or two of team stay longer. I hope
me346 will allow that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Adrian Ashfield]

Me356 apparently had troubles with the test unit.  He claims that it normally 
starts in about ten minutes.
In the early part of the test the plot showed that it looked like it was on the 
way up in five minutes but then petered out.
MFMP ar taking a break tomorrow to giver me356 time to fix it and will run a 
final test on Monday.  He says it is the only unit he has that has a cover and 
he is not prepared to show one without.
AA


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 27, 2017 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

... It would be great if this could run for several days... in the best 
effort of P experiments in France, there was no excess for 60 days - 
followed by several months of gain.

-

One comment on the above in the context of today's lack of results, 
since there will be those who will want to defend me356 on not having 
adequate time to get it running, in light of the past history of LENR 
and the usual need of an adequate break-in period before gain is seen.

That lack of start-up delay is not relevant here. Those who have 
followed me356 posts closely say that he claimed to have powered his 
house with heat from the device all of last winter. Therefore, since he 
had it running for an extended period already, we have to assume he was 
well past the break-in delay of a new device.

There is still hope, of course, that he can get it running tomorrow...

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jones Beene]

... It would be great if this could run for several days... in the best 
effort of P experiments in France, there was no excess for 60 days - 
followed by several months of gain.


-

One comment on the above in the context of today's lack of results, 
since there will be those who will want to defend me356 on not having 
adequate time to get it running, in light of the past history of LENR 
and the usual need of an adequate break-in period before gain is seen.


That lack of start-up delay is not relevant here. Those who have 
followed me356 posts closely say that he claimed to have powered his 
house with heat from the device all of last winter. Therefore, since he 
had it running for an extended period already, we have to assume he was 
well past the break-in delay of a new device.


There is still hope, of course, that he can get it running tomorrow...

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[David Roberson]

I agree with you Brian.  This is quite disappointing.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 27, 2017 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today



Jed is being too generous. His failure to test today is unforgivable!


I was fervently hoping for a positive outcome, but that was wishful thinking in 
extremus.




From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
 

At lenr-forum, me356 is quoted from somewhere:


"I can only tell, that the test was conducted in the condition that was very 
far from ready from my side. This mean that I was not prepared for testing with 
the current reactor at all. But this is the only one with a cover - thus 
nothing else can't be tested in this way. I didn't knew that the test will 
occur at this time as I was informed just few days before, but I dont want to 
waste money and time that was spent for already bought tickets and 
accommodation. So I have nothing to loose whatever it will work or not."


This is outrageous. me356 and everyone else knew weeks ago that the test was 
scheduled. He was not informed "just days before." This is a lie. And he does 
have something to "loose" (lose): he credibility. Apparently, he does not care 
about that.

This, along with the excuse that he has family responsibilities and cannot work 
today, makes me suspicious. If he refuses to allow one or two members of the 
MFMP to stay past Monday, I will conclude that he is a fake.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jones Beene]

Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Apparently they are performing a test in his absence.

There is an informative ongoing summary page here - with rolling averages

https://freeboard.io/board/MwMhlL

The COP seemed to be hovering around one while I was watching. No 
radiation. No surprises.


It would be great if this could run for several days. If you remember 
the best effort of P experiments in France, there was no excess for 60 
days - then several months of gain.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

This was basically seven similar experiments at the same time - of which 
5 failed
with little or no gain, and one which ran for a long time – 152 days. 
The one with

big net gain did not see any excess energy for the first 60 days.

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jack Cole]

>From what I can tell in their live document, me356 is there with them
tweaking things.  Doesn't really seem to be making any difference.

Jack

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>> Jed is being too generous. His failure to test today is unforgivable!
>>
> Apparently they are performing a test in his absence.
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5228-me356-photos-of-aura-control-unit/?postID=60623#post60623
>
> If he allows some of the MFMP team to stay several extra days next week, I
> will forgive him.
>
> He is being rude, unless a family member has some sort of emergency. If I
> had people coming all the way from the Czech Republic to visit me, I would
> put aside time and cancel all family events.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jed Rothwell]

Brian Ahern  wrote:

> Jed is being too generous. His failure to test today is unforgivable!
>
Apparently they are performing a test in his absence.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5228-me356-photos-of-aura-control-unit/?postID=60623#post60623

If he allows some of the MFMP team to stay several extra days next week, I
will forgive him.

He is being rude, unless a family member has some sort of emergency. If I
had people coming all the way from the Czech Republic to visit me, I would
put aside time and cancel all family events.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Brian Ahern]

Jed is being too generous. His failure to test today is unforgivable!


I was fervently hoping for a positive outcome, but that was wishful thinking in 
extremus.



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

At lenr-forum, me356 is quoted from somewhere:

"I can only tell, that the test was conducted in the condition that was very 
far from ready from my side. This mean that I was not prepared for testing with 
the current reactor at all. But this is the only one with a cover - thus 
nothing else can't be tested in this way. I didn't knew that the test will 
occur at this time as I was informed just few days before, but I dont want to 
waste money and time that was spent for already bought tickets and 
accommodation. So I have nothing to loose whatever it will work or not."

This is outrageous. me356 and everyone else knew weeks ago that the test was 
scheduled. He was not informed "just days before." This is a lie. And he does 
have something to "loose" (lose): he credibility. Apparently, he does not care 
about that.

This, along with the excuse that he has family responsibilities and cannot work 
today, makes me suspicious. If he refuses to allow one or two members of the 
MFMP to stay past Monday, I will conclude that he is a fake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jed Rothwell]

At lenr-forum, me356 is quoted from somewhere:

"I can only tell, that the test was conducted in the condition that was
very far from ready from my side. This mean that I was not prepared for
testing with the current reactor at all. But this is the only one with a
cover - thus nothing else can't be tested in this way. I didn't knew that
the test will occur at this time as I was informed just few days before,
but I dont want to waste money and time that was spent for already bought
tickets and accommodation. So I have nothing to loose whatever it will work
or not."


This is outrageous. me356 and everyone else knew weeks ago that the test
was scheduled. He was not informed "just days before." This is a lie. And
he does have something to "loose" (lose): he credibility. Apparently, he
does not care about that.

This, along with the excuse that he has family responsibilities and cannot
work today, makes me suspicious. If he refuses to allow one or two members
of the MFMP to stay past Monday, I will conclude that he is a fake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jack Cole]

Looks like he has already punted for the day citing family obligations.
The Americans are leaving Monday, I believe, so there may be tomorrow.
Were he planning to be objective, I think he would have said, "either I
made a mistake and it doesn't work, or it is not getting up to a high
enough temperature."  Maybe if he has the time to think about it today, he
can overcome the embarrassment, and allow the test to continue tomorrow.

Jack

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:02 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> As of now, this is looking worse than an objective observer would have
> predicted from the circumstances. I agree with Jed that just by letting
> these people in the door, me356 has enhanced his credibility... possibly
> less than being an early Porsche owner but at least he is open to
> scrutiny. Yet he is not the first self-deluded inventor to seek 15
> minutes of fame without good advice and proper preparation.
>
> Like it or not, this story is mostly about Rossi - another chapter in
> that disgusting legacy of failure - the man is poison. Even a dilettante
> should be able to show unity or modest gain by going back to the
> Thermacore technique. The new guy  has few credentials, no valid theory,
> no known expertise or even prior experience in LENR and no objective
> prior indication of success, but yet he gathers the rapt attention of
> the field (hoping to revive Rossi and the level of false hope which has
> been instilled).
>
> Like most on Vortex, I want his result to be great, regardless of his
> motivations since I believe LENR is real. Others like Thermacore
> demonstrated Ni-H gain at low COP -- but the poor showing today is
> unlikely to improve above the level of disappointment, not clearly
> gainful, and more like the dozen or so failed Parkhomov replication
> attempts so far (close to unity). Hopefully me356 can get it up to
> slightly above unity before they leave.
>
> Rossi supporters, as expected, were fervently praying for quick and easy
> gain at high COP since that would serve to vindicate their tarnished
> hero and show they are not as gullible as they continue to appear.
> Instead this fiasco looks like another nail in the Rossi coffin.
>
> Please, please - me365, do something tomorrow to make this negative
> assessment wrong. Show us COP of 6... or 3... or even 1.5 !
>
> Many here would be very happy with COP of 1.5 if verified by Alan
> Goldwater.
>
> Bob Higgins wrote:
> > I was only working from data I extracted from the plots.  It may prove
> > to be a little better when the raw data itself is analyzed.
> >
> > The first 10 minutes would not necessarily be better because the
> > heater was being driven with more power.  It may measure more
> > accurately because the water was closer to room temp.
> >
> > The steam was very effectively sparged - no bubbles were coming out of
> > the water.  At the end, the copper cooling coil was raised from the
> > water and steam came out from the holes in the tubing.
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jones Beene]

As of now, this is looking worse than an objective observer would have 
predicted from the circumstances. I agree with Jed that just by letting 
these people in the door, me356 has enhanced his credibility... possibly 
less than being an early Porsche owner but at least he is open to 
scrutiny. Yet he is not the first self-deluded inventor to seek 15 
minutes of fame without good advice and proper preparation.


Like it or not, this story is mostly about Rossi - another chapter in 
that disgusting legacy of failure - the man is poison. Even a dilettante 
should be able to show unity or modest gain by going back to the 
Thermacore technique. The new guy  has few credentials, no valid theory, 
no known expertise or even prior experience in LENR and no objective 
prior indication of success, but yet he gathers the rapt attention of 
the field (hoping to revive Rossi and the level of false hope which has 
been instilled).


Like most on Vortex, I want his result to be great, regardless of his 
motivations since I believe LENR is real. Others like Thermacore 
demonstrated Ni-H gain at low COP -- but the poor showing today is 
unlikely to improve above the level of disappointment, not clearly 
gainful, and more like the dozen or so failed Parkhomov replication 
attempts so far (close to unity). Hopefully me356 can get it up to 
slightly above unity before they leave.


Rossi supporters, as expected, were fervently praying for quick and easy 
gain at high COP since that would serve to vindicate their tarnished 
hero and show they are not as gullible as they continue to appear. 
Instead this fiasco looks like another nail in the Rossi coffin.


Please, please - me365, do something tomorrow to make this negative 
assessment wrong. Show us COP of 6... or 3... or even 1.5 !


Many here would be very happy with COP of 1.5 if verified by Alan Goldwater.

Bob Higgins wrote:
I was only working from data I extracted from the plots.  It may prove 
to be a little better when the raw data itself is analyzed.


The first 10 minutes would not necessarily be better because the 
heater was being driven with more power.  It may measure more 
accurately because the water was closer to room temp.


The steam was very effectively sparged - no bubbles were coming out of 
the water.  At the end, the copper cooling coil was raised from the 
water and steam came out from the holes in the tubing.

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

The first 10 minutes would not necessarily be better because the heater was
> being driven with more power.  It may measure more accurately because the
> water was closer to room temp.
>

That's what I meant. Better calorimetry. More adiabatic. Maybe not as good
for excess heat production.



> The steam was very effectively sparged - no bubbles were coming out of the
> water.
>

That's good.



> Apparently due to a broken cable, Me356 could not remotely control his
> water pump.  Instead he instructed Bob Greenyer to make manual changes to
> the flow setting.
>

Stuff like that always happens when people come from far away to test a
machine. Or to install a computer in 1982.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Bob Higgins]

I was only working from data I extracted from the plots.  It may prove to
be a little better when the raw data itself is analyzed.

The first 10 minutes would not necessarily be better because the heater was
being driven with more power.  It may measure more accurately because the
water was closer to room temp.

The steam was very effectively sparged - no bubbles were coming out of the
water.  At the end, the copper cooling coil was raised from the water and
steam came out from the holes in the tubing.

Apparently due to a broken cable, Me356 could not remotely control his
water pump.  Instead he instructed Bob Greenyer to make manual changes to
the flow setting.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
>
>> Calculated values for COP from the data graphs during this sparge test
>> varied from 0.5-0.7 depending on the span of time taken.
>>
>
> That is a low recovery rate. I think because the bucket was small and they
> ran the test for a long time, letting the water get hot.
>
>
>
>>  At the conclusion of the test, there would have been unrecovered heat
>> left in the device, and of course, the short rubber outlet hose was not
>> insulated, so the COP would be expected to be <1 if there was no excess
>> heat.  If the actual COP had been >2, the measured COP values would
>> probably have been consistently above 1.0 . . .
>>
>
> Probably. Especially in the first 10 minutes before the water in the
> bucket gets hot, I would expect it to be well above 1.0.
>
> The beauty of this technique is that you can take any time segment and
> compute the enthalpy: 10 minutes, 20 minutes or whatever. The problem is,
> as the water in the bucket heats up, more heat escapes. Eventually, heat
> losses equal input heat and the temperature stops rising. In other words,
> this technique only works in the adiabatic phase, which does not last for
> long with such a small bucket.
>
> me356, the man of mystery, says that it did not work because "the
> circulation pump was incorrect set. It cooled too hard to achieve working
> temperature." In tests of this nature, things often go wrong. That's why
> you have to plan to be there for several days. You have to cut the inventor
> a lot of slack. Be patient.
>
> Here is what I wrote at lenr-forum --
>
> Evidently [the me356 gadget] it is not working at the moment. Let us hope
> we find out if it ever did work. Assume he gets the pump working correctly,
> and he puts everything in conditions that he believes should work. Assume
> also that his instruments then show excess heat, but the MFMP project
> instruments disagree. In that case, we can be pretty sure he made a
> mistake. That outcome wouldn't surprise me in the least. It might take a
> few days to figure out what the mistake is.
>
> Whatever happens, I should say that my estimate of me356 has gone way up.
> Just by letting these people in the door he enhanced his own credibility a
> great deal. Kudos to him. I take back the insults I wrote here previously.
>
> If it turns out the gadget does not work, then me356 wasted a year chasing
> a phantom, and he should have invited outsiders to check his results
> earlier. That often happens. Working in secret with no independent
> confirmation is a stupid thing to do.
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:


> Calculated values for COP from the data graphs during this sparge test
> varied from 0.5-0.7 depending on the span of time taken.
>

That is a low recovery rate. I think because the bucket was small and they
ran the test for a long time, letting the water get hot.



>  At the conclusion of the test, there would have been unrecovered heat
> left in the device, and of course, the short rubber outlet hose was not
> insulated, so the COP would be expected to be <1 if there was no excess
> heat.  If the actual COP had been >2, the measured COP values would
> probably have been consistently above 1.0 . . .
>

Probably. Especially in the first 10 minutes before the water in the bucket
gets hot, I would expect it to be well above 1.0.

The beauty of this technique is that you can take any time segment and
compute the enthalpy: 10 minutes, 20 minutes or whatever. The problem is,
as the water in the bucket heats up, more heat escapes. Eventually, heat
losses equal input heat and the temperature stops rising. In other words,
this technique only works in the adiabatic phase, which does not last for
long with such a small bucket.

me356, the man of mystery, says that it did not work because "the
circulation pump was incorrect set. It cooled too hard to achieve working
temperature." In tests of this nature, things often go wrong. That's why
you have to plan to be there for several days. You have to cut the inventor
a lot of slack. Be patient.

Here is what I wrote at lenr-forum --

Evidently [the me356 gadget] it is not working at the moment. Let us hope
we find out if it ever did work. Assume he gets the pump working correctly,
and he puts everything in conditions that he believes should work. Assume
also that his instruments then show excess heat, but the MFMP project
instruments disagree. In that case, we can be pretty sure he made a
mistake. That outcome wouldn't surprise me in the least. It might take a
few days to figure out what the mistake is.

Whatever happens, I should say that my estimate of me356 has gone way up.
Just by letting these people in the door he enhanced his own credibility a
great deal. Kudos to him. I take back the insults I wrote here previously.

If it turns out the gadget does not work, then me356 wasted a year chasing
a phantom, and he should have invited outsiders to check his results
earlier. That often happens. Working in secret with no independent
confirmation is a stupid thing to do.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Adrian Ashfield]

Thanks.  I see my earlier reply now, but it wasn't there earlier.  I have no 
idea why it was used out of context to start a new thread.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, May 26, 2017 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today




On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:


That was what I wrote about in my last post but for some reaspn the post has 
not been published.



I saw your suggestion afterwards.  I think it somehow started a new thread 
rather than remaining in this one.


Eric

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Adrian Ashfield 
wrote:

That was what I wrote about in my last post but for some reaspn the post
> has not been published.


I saw your suggestion afterwards.  I think it somehow started a new thread
rather than remaining in this one.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Brian Ahern]

An oscilloscope is of negative value. It provides a false reading.



From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 9:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

That was what I wrote about in my last post but for some reaspn the post has 
not been published.
AA



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, May 25, 2017 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

I believe an oscilloscope can also be used to check for high-frequency 
components in the input power waveform.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Adrian Ashfield]

That was what I wrote about in my last post but for some reaspn the post has 
not been published.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, May 25, 2017 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today



I believe an oscilloscope can also be used to check for high-frequency 
components in the input power waveform.


Eric

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Alain Sepeda]

measuring the RF ambiance with an oscilloscope can raise red flags.
imprecise indirect measurement are often good cross check

Nothing is fool proof individually but if the testers  improve their tests
and cross check with simple measurement (like kill-a-watt at the socket,
electricity bill, RF ambiance, eye colorimetry, feel the hot air ,
thermocouple, thermal gun).
against fraud the best is to have an unpredictable protocol with cross
checking, and don't accept bad excuses.
against good faith errors, just many crosschecking is enough, and try to
understand deeply when things are not what they should.
a good protocol should be iterative, integrating critics and questions.
refusing iterations was the errors behind some previous delusion.




2017-05-26 4:36 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :

> I believe an oscilloscope can also be used to check for high-frequency
> components in the input power waveform.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Eric Walker]

I believe an oscilloscope can also be used to check for high-frequency
components in the input power waveform.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Adrian Ashfield]

Don;t know what all the fuss is about.  It easy enough to look at the signal 
with a good oscilloscope and see if there is likely to be a problem.
Seems to me the skeptics are busy looking for exotic ways to cheat so they can 
console themselves that it doesn't work even if me356's reactor actually does 
work.  Considering its ancestry I don't know know why Brian hasn't said it 
should be colored purple.
MFMP seem a competent bunch and short of seeing the actual test I have no 
reason to doubt their results. 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, May 25, 2017 3:39 pm
Subject: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today




I do not believe the Aura device is a plasma electrolysis system.  I believe it 
is a Ni-H system with a dry reactor that is electrically stimulated.  The water 
is from cooling of the reactor.  MFMP will be measuring wall plug power as the 
input to the Aura device with two different power analyzers.  The wall plug 
power should not be as hard to measure as plasma electrolysis input power.


I agree that there are serious issues with measuring the power of a plasma 
electrolysis system by measuring voltage and current.  With the bubbles popping 
up and instantly changing the cell voltage and current, it doesn't surprise me 
in the least that ultrasound and low RF signals are detected.


I also agree that measuring steam accurately is an issue.  However, measuring 
steam via heat exchanger or by sparging the steam is conservative - if anything 
it will report less energy than actually exists in the steam (with any 
entrained hot water).  Thus, the COP measured would be lower than the actual 
device is producing.




On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:


May I make a prediction?
When the COP is around 6-8 and the process is plasma  electrolysis, the input 
is invariably under reported.
The plasma is actually a series of sporadic arcs. Measuring the I(t)  and V(t) 
simultaneously is impossible for all but the most sophisticated test equipment.
If the plasma electrolysis is not in operation, but boiling is; then we face 
the issue of dry versus wet steam which causes errors consonant with a COp 
around 6-8.

From: Adrian Ashfield 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
 

Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box test 
of me356' reactor.
It is supposed to be similar to his previous model that has been running 
several months now.
 It was reported to be ~10 Kw with a COP >6.
  
See 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/05/23/mfmp-on-site-preparing-for-me356-testing/

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Jed Rothwell]

This wiring diagram shows the AURA Device plugged into something similar to
a "Kill A Watt" brand EZ Electricity Usage Monitor (power meter). Another
brand is the "Watts Up" meter. See:

https://www.amazon.com/P3-International-P4460-Electricity-Monitor/dp/B000RGF29Q/

Those gadgets are great because if me356 is playing some sort of stupid
game hiding electric power, the power meter will burn up. I am not
suggesting he is playing a game, but this meter ensures that he cannot.
Plus, you cannot install the meter incorrectly. The clip on meter shown
below this in the diagram might be clipped on wrong, but the plug-in one
cannot be wrong.

The product names are an added bonus. You gotta love "Kill A Watt" and
"Watts Up"!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Axil Axil]

 

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

> Measuring rich HF signal power is tricky
>
> is it not more easy to measure power at the power supply input, adding
> good filters, and why not if paranoid an inverter/UPS or a good old
> predictable batteries ?
> You lose precision and performance, but at least you are sure it is not HF
> tricks..
>
>
>
> 2017-05-25 14:24 GMT+02:00 Brian Ahern :
>
>> May I make a prediction?
>>
>>
>> When the COP is around 6-8 and the process is plasma  electrolysis, the
>> input is invariably under reported.
>>
>>
>> The plasma is actually a series of sporadic arcs. Measuring the I(t)  and
>> V(t) simultaneously is impossible for all but the most sophisticated test
>> equipment.
>>
>> If the plasma electrolysis is not in operation, but boiling is; then we
>> face the issue of dry versus wet steam which causes errors consonant with a
>> COp around 6-8.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Adrian Ashfield 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:53 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
>>
>> Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box
>> test of me356' reactor.
>> It is supposed to be similar to his previous model that has been running
>> several months now.
>>  It was reported to be ~10 Kw with a COP >6.
>>
>> See http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/05/23/mfmp-on-site-preparing-
>> for-me356-testing/
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Alain Sepeda]

Measuring rich HF signal power is tricky

is it not more easy to measure power at the power supply input, adding good
filters, and why not if paranoid an inverter/UPS or a good old predictable
batteries ?
You lose precision and performance, but at least you are sure it is not HF
tricks..



2017-05-25 14:24 GMT+02:00 Brian Ahern :

> May I make a prediction?
>
>
> When the COP is around 6-8 and the process is plasma  electrolysis, the
> input is invariably under reported.
>
>
> The plasma is actually a series of sporadic arcs. Measuring the I(t)  and
> V(t) simultaneously is impossible for all but the most sophisticated test
> equipment.
>
> If the plasma electrolysis is not in operation, but boiling is; then we
> face the issue of dry versus wet steam which causes errors consonant with a
> COp around 6-8.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Adrian Ashfield 
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:53 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
>
> Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box
> test of me356' reactor.
> It is supposed to be similar to his previous model that has been running
> several months now.
>  It was reported to be ~10 Kw with a COP >6.
>
> See http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/05/23/mfmp-on-site-
> preparing-for-me356-testing/
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Axil Axil]

A heat exchanger avoids this wet steam issue.








On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> May I make a prediction?
>
>
> When the COP is around 6-8 and the process is plasma  electrolysis, the
> input is invariably under reported.
>
>
> The plasma is actually a series of sporadic arcs. Measuring the I(t)  and
> V(t) simultaneously is impossible for all but the most sophisticated test
> equipment.
>
> If the plasma electrolysis is not in operation, but boiling is; then we
> face the issue of dry versus wet steam which causes errors consonant with a
> COp around 6-8.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Adrian Ashfield 
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:53 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
>
> Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box
> test of me356' reactor.
> It is supposed to be similar to his previous model that has been running
> several months now.
>  It was reported to be ~10 Kw with a COP >6.
>
> See http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/05/23/mfmp-on-site-
> preparing-for-me356-testing/
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Brian Ahern]

May I make a prediction?


When the COP is around 6-8 and the process is plasma  electrolysis, the input 
is invariably under reported.


The plasma is actually a series of sporadic arcs. Measuring the I(t)  and V(t) 
simultaneously is impossible for all but the most sophisticated test equipment.

If the plasma electrolysis is not in operation, but boiling is; then we face 
the issue of dry versus wet steam which causes errors consonant with a COp 
around 6-8.





From: Adrian Ashfield 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box test 
of me356' reactor.
It is supposed to be similar to his previous model that has been running 
several months now.
 It was reported to be ~10 Kw with a COP >6.

See 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/05/23/mfmp-on-site-preparing-for-me356-testing/